Epidemiology and biology of physical activity and cancer recurrence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is emerging from epidemiologic research as a lifestyle factor that may improve survival from colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers. However, there is considerably less evidence relating physical activity to cancer recurrence and the biologic mechanisms underlying this association remain unclear. Cancer patients are surviving longer than ever before, and fear of cancer recurrence is an important concern. Herein, we provide an overview of the current epidemiologic evidence relating physical activity to cancer recurrence. We review the biologic mechanisms most commonly researched in the context of physical activity and cancer outcomes, and, using the example of colorectal cancer, we explore hypothesized mechanisms through which physical activity might intervene in the colorectal recurrence pathway. Our review highlights the importance of considering pre-diagnosis and post-diagnosis activity, as well as cancer stage and timing of recurrence, in epidemiologic studies. In addition, more epidemiologic research is needed with cancer recurrence as a consistently defined outcome studied separately from survival. Future mechanistic research using randomized controlled trials, specifically those demonstrating the exercise responsiveness of hypothesized mechanisms in early stages of carcinogenesis, are needed to inform recommendations about when to exercise and to anticipate additive or synergistic effects with other preventive behaviors or treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it